UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6358
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE EDWARD WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-92-228, CA-97-631-2)
Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Edward Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Edward Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2000), and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny § 2255
relief, and the court’s order denying the Rule 59(e) motion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning
of the district court.* United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-92-228;
CA-97-631-2 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 1999 & Sept. 22, 2000). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Williams’ claim that his sentence is not proper in light of
the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),
is without merit. We recently held in United States v. Sanders,
247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in
Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral
review. We also decline to address the new ineffective assistance
of counsel claim raised by Williams for the first time on appeal.
Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding
that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be
considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or
fundamental miscarriage of justice).
2